Skip to comments.Is Marco Rubio eligible to be President?
Posted on 02/10/2012 6:27:16 AM PST by Former MSM Viewer
Did Rubios parents become citizens before he was born?
Can he run as VP?
No . But that didn’t stop Obozo .
He cannot run as VP if he is ineligible to be President. I’ll leave the determination of his NBC status—and his eligibility for the Presidency to others on FR.
Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas before it was a State. According to the ludicrous “a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is different than a citizen at birth” contingent, he would not have been eligible to be Vice-President.
And yet, he was.
So yes, since Marco Rubio was born as an American citizen, he is eligible to be President and therefore eligible to be Vice-President.
Is Romney eligible to run???
Well the courts have essentially decided that part of the constitution doesn’t matter so why not?
Article II of the Constitution requires natural born Citizenship to be eligible for the office of POTUS.
Marco Rubio was also born as a Cuban citizen, the American-born child of two Cuban foreign nationals.
Perhaps the SINGLE MOST exceptional and BOLD COURAGEOUS act a man, this man, Marco Rubio, might do for AMERICA and the restoration of the G-dly values of the Constitution, the Declaration and our Founding Era, is to claim that according to his best understanding of the proper meaning of the US Constitution’s requirement of “Natural Born Citizen” that he himself is ineligible.
If that is how the decision is made, Rubio is eligible to run for President, and so aren't the anchor babies of illegal aliens. - tom
Personally I try to avoid jumping on a politician's bandwagon because they happen to be an ethnic minority member of my party, but Congressman West really IS the best candidate for VP IMHO. In fact I wish he were running for the top spot - he'd have BO crapping his drawers.
You need to go back in history and read why the framers put those “natural born citizen” words in the Second Amendment. Here we sit with an impostor in the WH and you fail to see the harm in advancing the argument that any old “citizen” can be president. Can't you see that Obama proves the case for insisting that a president be born on U.S. soil and to two U.S. citizen parents. If the law would have been followed with Obama, look at all the strife that this country would have avoided. It proves that Obama never had loyal American parenting to be fit for being the president.
Good God, yes. Please stop it already. Nobody is buying this birther nonsense. Nobody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never defined natural born Citizen any other way than born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. Citizen parents.
What is your opinion on Charles Curtis? Born outside of the U.S. Or Grover Cleveland, whose father was a British citizen at the time of his birth?
I meant to say Second Article not Second Amendment.
Public records say no, though some dispute them.<
Can he be Prez one day? Can he run as VP?
As far as we know, NO.
But that didn't stop Obama.
Apparently, if we want to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions on this topic, we are "birthers" and are to be despised, even on FR.
The answer is NO, rubio’s parents were not citizens and rubio is NOT eligible. However, under the communist-rino agreement that provided the hussein dunham usurpation, rubio and jindal will now be waived through. The senate resolution 511 for mccain will now be 513 and 514 for both marco and bobby. Somehow, the commies forgot resolution 512 for dunham.
What possible difference can it make to know whether any of the proposed candidates are qualified for office.
No one cares.
Those that do care are shot down, mostly with the argument that you will never win the argument.
SO Obama violates to the free exercise of religion.
Even our supreme Court Justice says that Constitution would not be passed if they tried it today, and she would prefer the South African Constitution.
All I can say is, if the Constitution not longer matters for you, then beware that it no longer matters for me, either.
If you want a dictator in office with all powers, then beware when someone whom you do not support gets in there to be his or her own kind of dictator.
Meanwhile, the powers that be destroy the economy, free enterprise, and stifle free speech everywhere, and no one even notices.
A pox on them all.
The Supreme Court has said:
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
So there you go. Based on common law (the basis of jurisprudence in the United States), a person born in the country is a citizen of the country at birth. The Supreme Court then says that there are only two ways to be a citizen of the United States: to be born as a citizen or to be naturalized as a citizen.
There is NO magic third definition.
That’s what the Supreme Court says.
Normally, when people are naturalized, they are proud of it. Any politician would have this info in their biographies and use it to full advantage to garner votes. Do you see anything anywhere where Papa George was naturalized? Nope. I don't either. There were questions over this when he ran for POTUS but he dropped out before any serious investigation began. I'd like to see the new improved version of SR511 on vetting Mitt. It isn't going to happen because the RATS are wanting him in the running. As soon as the GOP elects an ineligible POTUS, bam! that's the end of any questions about the kenyan's appointments and rulings while in office.
People like this are why this country is going down the toilet. If one section of the Constitution means nothing, it's all void, and Obama can do anything he wants. Until the next civil war, anyway.
Charles Curtis? Enlighten me.
As to Grover Cleveland, he was a natural born Citizen as his father was a U.S. citizen when Grover was born:
Richard Falley Cleveland - was born on 19 Jun 1804 in Norwich, New London County, Connecticut and died on 1 Oct 1853 in Holland Patent, Erie, NY . He was the son of William Cleveland and Margaret Falley. Richard married Ann Neale. Ann was born on 4 Feb 1806 in Baltimore, Baltimore County, Maryland.
I apologize (I’ll blame caffiene deprivation a while ago), it was Chester Arthur, not Grover Cleveland, whose Father was Irish and not an American when he was born.
I suggest that Marco & Bobby won't be given a congressional "free pass" unless, in the style of the Missouri Compromise, the Democrats try once again to run another candidate of questionable NBC-status. Then a one-for-one bargain will be struck a la McCain-for-Obama.
Seriously, we are in an era where paternity is so devalued that many Americans, raised only by their mothers, don't know who their father is with any degree of certainty. Combine that with the overhang from all the "anchor babies" born over the last 40 years and you have a recipe for what he have now -- a president who just flouts the constitution because the vast majority of citizens don't give a rip.
So, what are you going to do about it, other than argue with Freepers? Are you going to don a super-hero suit and save the day as "Constitution Man"? Like it or not, the precedent has been set with Obama. If we want to run Rubio or Jindal, then we can.
Nobody is ridiculing the Constitution, but rather the made-up birtherisms that are found nowhere in the Constitution.
The definition of NBC was understood by the founders, it didn’t need to be explained. As the constitution was being written, issues surrounding who could serve as our head of state, and what that would be were hotly debated. The one requirement they all wanted was that our leader only have allegiance to the new fledgling united states. I wish I could read french, but as a product of the US education system, I’m lucky to be able to read english. When writing the constitution the founders including GW leaned heavily on the Law of Nations by Vattel 1758. In fact it was only last year that the NY public library forgave GW a late book fine of over 300K for three outstanding books one of which was an english translation of Vattel’s seminal work.
In the Law of Nations, citizenship was clearly defined as flowing from the bloodline of the father, where one was born was not relevant. To be native born, however was to be born on one’s home soil of parents who owed no other sovereign their allegiance, by renouncing any other citizenship and being a citizen of their chosen sovereign.
Charles Curtis was not born in the United States. He was born in the territory of Kansas.
This is the same argument that was tried against Barry Goldwater as he was born in the territory of Arizona.
According to the strict definitions that have been put down as the line of legitimacy, neither Curtis nor Goldwater (nor McCain for that matter) would be a “Natural Born Citizen” according to Vattel.
This argument fails on all accounts, everytime it’s brought up.
There are two ways (and only two, according to the words of the Supreme Court above) to be a citizen. You are either born a citizen, or you are naturalized a citizen.
If you are born a citizen, you are a “natural born citizen”. Period.
I thought perhaps that you were referring to Chester Arthur. But as I too was caffeine-deprived at the time I didn't want to jump on you. LOL!
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Article II presidential eligibility and the term natural born Citizen is NOT mentioned even once in it's wording.
Natural born is from natural law, and requires no man made law or legislation.
You have to give up on this crowd. They are beyond reason.
No, and the way he talks about Cuba, there would clearly be a loyalty conflict.
Look under your bed !
Keep calling it “Obot” misinformation so that everyone can see what a prick you are.
English Common Law was the basis of jurisprudence in the early party of this nation’s history. It was the lens that we viewed the law. The Marshall Court relied upon it exclusively, except in the matter of international and naval situations, and it is where many of our current legal precedence comes from.
The Supreme Court has plenty to say about the birther arguments, and none is good news for the birther movement.
No Rubio’s parents became citizens after his birth. He is not eligible to be VP or POTUS but I’m sure the GOP will try to run him anyway. There is an unspoken agreement between the GOP and Dems to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Thats why Obama was allowed to run. They all knew he was not eligible.
Neither of your examples even mentions the term:
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
‘Perhaps the SINGLE MOST exceptional and BOLD COURAGEOUS act a man, this man, Marco Rubio, might do for AMERICA and the restoration of the G-dly values of the Constitution, the Declaration and our Founding Era, is to claim that according to his best understanding of the proper meaning of the US Constitutions requirement of Natural Born Citizen that he himself is ineligible.’
Is your point that if a law gets broken and the breaking goes undetected / punished, the law is forever null and void?
I’m saying that these arguments have been used before, have been found to be without merit, and it is ludicrous to think that we have a better idea of what was in the Founder’s minds than John Marshall.
BTW the requirements for veep are the same as the requirements for president.
Found without merit or found without standing? I have not seen the former and would love for you to point to where this has actually been adjudicated on the merits.
There are 4 kinds -
1. those who abide by the consitution, including article 2
2. those who couldn’t care less about the constitution, like the obots and the radical leftists
3. those who just go with the mob mentality - majority think it is ok to change the meaning of natural born citizen
without a constitution amendment, so be it. Why fight?
4. those who have no clue!
The constitution protects the minority. But if you the people, together with congess, judicial system and the gov don’t care about the constitution, you go with the majority and the minority is out of luck.
Just to make a very, very, very clear point.
Vattel’s “Law of Nations”
the basis of the U.S. Constitution.
Our Constitution was based on English Common Law. It was only in 1938 that the Court abandoned Common Law.
Interesting. I looked up Curtis and you’re right. He wouldn’t qualify under the new birther interpretation of two parents.
In the Ark case, many of the arguments used by the birthers (including heavy reliance upon Vattel) are used in the dissenting opinion.
I would say that those arguments were therefore presented before the Court, and as the Court (in it’s majority) discounted those arguments, those arguments were found to be without merit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.